Orange County
criminal defense lawyers
When property is stolen, perhaps through Petty
theft, Grand
theft, AUTO THEFT, or another form of theft, it is often sold or
given to another for one reason or another. Naturally, the person who stole the
property will be subject to criminal liability for the theft. But perhaps less
obvious, although well known to criminal
defense lawyers in Orange County, is that any person who receives stolen
property is also subject to criminal prosecution for either a misdemeanor or
felony charge. California Penal Code section 496 says that any person who buys
or receives any property that has been stolen or that has been obtained in any
manner constitution theft or extortion, knowing the property to be stolen or
obtained, is guilty of the offense of receiving stolen property.
theft, Grand
theft, AUTO THEFT, or another form of theft, it is often sold or
given to another for one reason or another. Naturally, the person who stole the
property will be subject to criminal liability for the theft. But perhaps less
obvious, although well known to criminal
defense lawyers in Orange County, is that any person who receives stolen
property is also subject to criminal prosecution for either a misdemeanor or
felony charge. California Penal Code section 496 says that any person who buys
or receives any property that has been stolen or that has been obtained in any
manner constitution theft or extortion, knowing the property to be stolen or
obtained, is guilty of the offense of receiving stolen property.
Receiving stolen property is an extremely common crime in
Orange County. Prosecutors are not shy about bringing charges against anyone in
possession of stolen property. If the property’s value is below $950.00, the DA
has the option of charging the crime as a misdemeanor. In this instance, the defendant’s
theft defense lawyer will
lobby the prosecutor for a misdemeanor charge instead of a felony. Whether the
crime is charged as a misdemeanor or a felony, in order to convict a person of
the crime of receiving stolen property the DA must prove the following elements
by proof beyond a reasonable doubt:
Orange County. Prosecutors are not shy about bringing charges against anyone in
possession of stolen property. If the property’s value is below $950.00, the DA
has the option of charging the crime as a misdemeanor. In this instance, the defendant’s
theft defense lawyer will
lobby the prosecutor for a misdemeanor charge instead of a felony. Whether the
crime is charged as a misdemeanor or a felony, in order to convict a person of
the crime of receiving stolen property the DA must prove the following elements
by proof beyond a reasonable doubt:
1)
That the property in question was stolen;
That the property in question was stolen;
2)
That the defendant bought, received, concealed,
withheld, or aided in receiving, concealing, or withholding it; and
That the defendant bought, received, concealed,
withheld, or aided in receiving, concealing, or withholding it; and
3)
That the defendant knew that the property was stolen
when he or she so acted.
That the defendant knew that the property was stolen
when he or she so acted.
I believe any Orange County theft lawyer would agree that the
element most often in contention is the element of knowledge. The DA must prove
that the defendant KNEW the property was stolen. However, if the defendant is
in possession of stolen property and offers no explanation of how the defendant
came to possess it, or no reasonable explanation, or where the explanation
raises suspicious circumstances, this will justify the inference by the jury
that the property was received with knowledge that the property was stolen. People v. Myles (1975) 123 Cal.Rptr.
348.
element most often in contention is the element of knowledge. The DA must prove
that the defendant KNEW the property was stolen. However, if the defendant is
in possession of stolen property and offers no explanation of how the defendant
came to possess it, or no reasonable explanation, or where the explanation
raises suspicious circumstances, this will justify the inference by the jury
that the property was received with knowledge that the property was stolen. People v. Myles (1975) 123 Cal.Rptr.
348.
Also, it is not necessary to show that the defendant
actually physically possessed the stolen property. It is enough to show that the
stolen property was concealed on the premises owned or controlled by the
defendant with the defendant’s knowledge and consent.
actually physically possessed the stolen property. It is enough to show that the
stolen property was concealed on the premises owned or controlled by the
defendant with the defendant’s knowledge and consent.
If you are facing charges for theft or for receiving stolen
property, call The Law Offices of EJ
Stopyro at (949) 559-5500 for a
free and confidential consultation with an experienced criminal defense lawyer in Orange
County. We have offices at 1901 Newport Blvd., Suite 350, Costa Mesa, CA
92627 and at 32072 Camino Capistrano, 2nd floor, San Juan
Capistrano, CA 92675. You can also visit us online at www.ejesquire.com.
property, call The Law Offices of EJ
Stopyro at (949) 559-5500 for a
free and confidential consultation with an experienced criminal defense lawyer in Orange
County. We have offices at 1901 Newport Blvd., Suite 350, Costa Mesa, CA
92627 and at 32072 Camino Capistrano, 2nd floor, San Juan
Capistrano, CA 92675. You can also visit us online at www.ejesquire.com.
No comments:
Post a Comment